The joy(ce) of drink

IanPJonPolitics, The BoilingFrog and Richard North, EU Referendum, have all commented on 'L'affaire Eric Joyce'.


It will indeed be interesting to see what transpires where the police investigation is concerned and whether if charges are brought and Joyce appears in court, what sentence will be handed down should the verdict be guilty. It will indeed be interesting to see whether the people of Falkirk do demand the recall of their Member of Parliament and whether the decision of his peers will concur.


It should be remembered that Joyce is a member of a class in our society that spends most of its time dictating how we should behave - some role model (not). From They Work For You comes two quotes by this sorry example from amongst the good and the great. First: ".....I go about my constituency occasionally with the cops on a Friday or Saturday night. We see a bit of violence in the streets and recognise where it comes from, what is happening and who the bad guys are—who has been caught up in things because they have drunk too much and so on....."; and second, speaking during Public Bill Committee: Drugs Bill: New Clause 1 - inclusion of khat as a Class A drug: "....I would be very reluctant to classify alcohol as category B. This debate goes on when we talk about how we should classify any type of drug. Ultimately, one of the most serious drugs is one that we tolerate enormously in society—everyone is this Room uses it, in moderation, of course—and it is alcohol." (Emphasis mine)


Richard North is correct to query why we have elections, as is IanPJ to maintain that this 'affaire' is just another reason why this rough house where the gang known as the rotten parliament hang out must be dissolved.




Update: It would appear that Eric Joyce had a previous 'problem' with the police in 2010. In case it has been 'amended' I am grateful to Max Farquar for taking a screen grab:

Reducing Costs

Having been out most of the day it had been my intention, on returning home, to write about Cameron entering the alcohol debate, however Richard North, EU Referendum, The Boiling Frog and The Talking Clock have covered this topic exceedingly well, Richard North linking to the latter two blogs. I note from the Daily Telegraph that Cameron will attack the “scandal of our society” caused by Britain’s drinking culture which costs the NHS more than £2.7 billion annually - or so it is said.


As an aside to all that has been written, perhaps Cameron might also consider attacking an even bigger "scandal of our society", wherein the taxpayer is being stung £165million to fund a group in our society who obviously have no understanding of the meaning of the word 'representative'.  £165million may seem peanuts when compared to £2.7billion, but bear in mind that when considering the costs of idiotic and ill-informed decisions our politicians have taken over the years, the actual cost to the taxpayer probably cannot be computed!


Just saying.....................

Words and deeds

Today has been a rather quiet 'news day, the reasons for which I know not - whether this is due to a dose of ''acropolitis' or that what news there is 'has been all Greek' to us, I know not. Consequently what news and opinions that have been pertinent has, once again, come from the blogosphere.

Initially, let us consider two posts: one by John Redwood and the other by The Boiling Frog. First John Redwood, who queries whether the 'group of 81' might in fact be more than 81. In his post Redwood cites the case of Dr. Phillip Lee who voted against the recent debate calling for a referendum on EU membership, posing the question whether there may have been more like Lee who filed through the 'No' lobby. With all respect to John Redwood, his question could be taken as yet another reason to excuse supposedly eurosceptics not voting according to how their constituents wished - it also has that aroma of smoke 'n mirrors', one whereby Redwood is fudging the basic question, namely either MPs believe in membership of the EU or not.

The Boiling Frog mentions that, despite Conservative Party rhetoric, they have, over the years:

"1. Entered the EEC on a lie (read the 1971 internal document FCO 30/1048)
  2. Campaigned in the 1975 referendum for a yes vote, including Thatcher
  3. Passed the Single European Act
  4. Shadowed the Deutschmark in preparation to enter the ERM.
  5. Entered the ERM which directly lead to the early '90s recession
  6. Passed the Maastricht Treaty
  7.Have become, in Roger Helmer's words the most pro-EU government ever, since elected in 2010."

As TBF so rightly states the Conservative Party - and most definitely their MPs - have fudged the issue of EU membership and it is about time that their MPs came down off their respective fences. In this respect the quotation by Andrew Carnegie is most apt where future voting intentions are concerned when matters EU arise for debate and subsequent voting.

Calling England links to the recent Civitas report by Ian Milne in which he believes that the UK's 'extraction'  from the EU can be accomplished within the timetable he sets out. This would indeed be ideal - if only it could be carried out as Milne suggests. Unfortunately, I tend to agree with the view espoused by Richard North, EU Referendum, in his post: "A declaration of independence". That is, I hasten to add, not in anyway intended as criticism of CE, but merely to raise doubts about what Ian Milne believes possible. It is also worth mentioning that while the electorate continues to follow their tribal tendencies, continually voting for the Lib/Lab/Con, it will not allow the opportunity to even test whether Milne or Richard North is correct - a point worthy of serious consideration.

The above demonstrates, in my humble opinion, what is missing from the blogosphere - and this is not in any way intended as a criticism of my fellow bloggers. However, we all sit back offering criticism of all that we know is wrong, complaining - to the extent that we must by now be hoarse of both voice and word - about politics in general and the lack of accountability therein, coupled with that which they are party to, namely a system of democratised dictatorship; and the deficits in sovereignty as a result of our country's membership of the EU. Not one of us, to my knowledge, with the exception or Richard North and his idea of "Referism" and, if I may so bold, myself with my series on "Constitution" in which I argued for a 'participtory' form of democracy based on the Swiss system, has attempted to offer an alternative to the nadir in which this country finds itself.

I wonder, therefore, how many in the blogosphere would be interested in a little exercise, namely formulating an agreed 'new' form of democracy resulting in a document that could be put to the existing political parties and challenging them to incorporate it into their manifestos. Failing which, perhaps it may just promote the formation of a new political party, one with which the general electorate may become enthused, once the basic 'ideals' are explained to them. It is worth mentioning that, in respect of publicity, there are those in the blogosphere who have access to the newspapers by which means they could publicise such an 'alternative' form of democracy.  In any event, if the 'exercise' stirred the torpor that presently exists amongst the electorate and made them question all that is presently wrong with this country's existing democratic debacle, it would have, at least, accomplished its purpose - namely a situation whereby the electorate begin to take an interest in that which is done in their name.

Just thinking..........

Comments, 'takers' - and criticisms..........?

Truth is the new 'Hate Speech'

The title of this post is taken from a video over at Klein Verzet's place. Whilst this speaker is talking about the islamization of the United States, a great deal of what she say is true in this country. For example, if you dare to speak out against membership of the EU you're promptly accused of xenophobia, or, speak out against immigration and you are accused of being a racist. She also makes the point that politicians control the media and thus control what information is available. As an aside to that last point, Off with your head confirms that view.

Autonomous Mind posts on "The next European War" and The Boiling Frog on "Another Warning" and both posts are well worth the trip over to read them. Coupled with these two post and likewise worthy of reading is that from Janet Daley on the Telegraph website. I particularly liked this section:

"Indeed, it is often quite eerie how the statements and mannerisms of EU officials, seemingly so dedicated to being the precise opposite of earlier, infamous generations, end up echoing (or parodying) the more memorable moments of the war-torn 20th century. When the president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, proclaimed, “I am pleased to stand before you this morning and confirm that Europe is closer to resolving its financial and economic crisis… We are showing that we can unite in the most difficult of times”, I half expected him to wave a piece of paper in the air and proclaim economic stability in our time."

That the public is becoming more and more aware that our politicians lie to us; treat us as 'cash cows'; believe they are a race apart; have no real understanding of democracy; through a compliant media, control the information provided to us; and consequently treat us as slaves, brings forward the secenario of a 'peoples revolution'. That because the political system is rigged against the electorate means that Janet Daley's end of her article is even more relevant:

"It relies on unswerving belief and enforced conformity, just like all the “year zero” political movements that ended in totalitarianism and terror in the past. The one hope is that the great mass of the people, unlike most of their political leaders, seem to understand all this quite clearly. It remains to be seen whether they will have to go out on the streets to make their case."

 As a nation our first characteristic may not be immediate retaliation against those that offend us however, as history shows, when 'push comes to shove' we are as good as - if not better - than any other nation in showing our displeasure when it becomes necessary. When 'shove' is the only alternative left I am sure the British people will do so to such an extent that they will be able to face any other nation and, quoting the words of Mr. Punch, say to them: "That's the way to do it".

Roger Helmer (3)

Today the news broke that Roger Helmer is to resign as an MEP, effective 31st December 2011, citing amongst his reasons:

"As with any major decision, this is driven by a number of factors.  Some might say that it is high time I stood aside for a younger man.  For myself, I think that twelve-and-a-half years banging my head against the same brick wall in Brussels is perhaps long enough.  And I should certainly like to see more of my three fine grandsons. 
But it would be disingenuous to deny that my decision is dictated in part by my increasing disillusion with the attitudes of the Conservative Party.  I am finding it ever more difficult to defend the policies of the Coalition, not only on my key issues of Europe, and of climate and energy, but on a range of other matters besides. 
I will have more to say about this in coming days."

Reporting his resignation, the BBC carries this quote:

"You reach a point, in all honesty, where you cannot sit here and say I am a Tory MEP but I disagree with nine-tenths of what the party are saying.......The only honest thing to do is to say you quit."

Like Autonomous Mind, although not in as great a detail nor extent, I too have been critical of Roger Helmer for his continued membership of the Conservative Party. There are those who, like The Boiling Frog, take a more cynical view and one to which I tend to lean myself. There are also those who immediately put fingers to keyboard with the statement that it is inevitable, in their view, Helmer will join Ukip, even though the man has stated that he hopes to remain a member of his present party.

Helmer's statement to the BBC does rather show up the hypocritical behaviour of his colleagues in Westminster, who professing to have views similar to him, regularly troop through the voting lobbies at Westminster supporting their party in any matter EU! It also does place Daniel Hannan in an awkward position, does it not?

As a final thought, how many people towards the end of their lives recant and admit their sins to a higher authority (there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents)? As a magnanimous gesture, is that not how Helmer's resignation should be accepted?

Just saying...........